User talk:Distantlycharmed
For older discussions see Archive "Regular" universe When I put the links up I was trying not to use the term "prime" since there is a bit of a debate about that term going on right now, or maybe it has ended, I don't check it that often, but either way hope this answers your question. - Archduk3 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) :Ok cool. I changed it to keep it uniform, since we have been using "prime" thus far with all the other characters in until we figure out something else, if at all. – Distantlycharmed 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) A Matter of Perspective Just so you are aware, I moved your comment to the featured article removal candidates page, since that's what you were suggesting. :) --31dot 20:12, September 14, 2009 (UTC) Voyager Edits I'm wondering why you moved all of the USS Voyager's history towards the bottom of the page. I spent a great deal of time re-writing that article and had the format down to a science, now it's ruined. --Nero210 21:38, June 22, 2010 (UTC) The technical data comes first on articles for starship classes, but not necessarily the individual starships. You put a majority of the history towards the bottom and now it just doesn't look right, so I'm going to keep changing it back. --Nero210 23:12, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :Since this has gone back and forth with huge edits, I've temporarily protected the article in question. Please take the discussion to the talk page and discuss the changes there instead of just reverting edits. -- sulfur 23:28, June 22, 2010 (UTC) :Please note that ship names here on the wiki are done in the style USS Voyager rather than USS Voyager. Only the name is italicized, not the designation. -- sulfur 00:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh I see. Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I do get that confused at times.– Distantlycharmed 00:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :Check out the Manual of style for the full way for formatting here. -- sulfur 00:42, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Journey of Voyager Section Look I've been pretty tolerant of how you've edited the Voyager article since I re-wrote it a couple days ago, and in all honesty I actually prefer your description of how the ship ended up in the Delta Quadrant over mine (I had a bit of writers block on that section on how to word it) and believe you have added a good deal of information that I missed. But if you were paying attention to anything I was saying in the talk page you would know a Journey of Voyager section isn't necessary because its covered in the "history" section. This is the first time since the re-write that I've reverted one of your edits and so long as you don't start up that section again it should very well be the last. Please work with me just a little bit for once in this whole debate. --Nero210 20:14, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :: First of all, this isnt your article which you "tolerate" me editing - thanks very much. Learn something about wiki etiquette and policy. Second, I have also explained my position in the talk page and in fact believe that the Journey of Voyager - with all the subheaders that follow etc - to be very appropriate. Moreover, you mention, "Shortening the journey" - and therefore, "the Journey of Voyager" goes very well with it - as both reference Voyager's Journey. I also find your suggestion that I am not reading what you wrote in the comment article annoying - as you assume that the only reason I disagree with you must be because I "dont get you". But that isnt true. I get what you are saying and I think you are mistaken and disagree. ::I dont find anything wrong with that sbudivision and in fact find it giving it the article a nice structure in which the journeys of voyager are summarized under one big header. I am sorry you do not agree with that and I dont mean to be rude, but I'm just gonna say it because I really think with your attempted reorganization you have made a gigantic mess out of the Voyager article. My organization gave the article a clear structure and focus and you just jumbled it all around. You mention "Dealings with the Borg" right after you talk about the Kazon and then you categorize "the equinox" under "contact with Starfleet" - which it really isnt - Voyager didnt have contact with Starfleet by their encounter with the Equinox. But just the same, as I have actually been respectful of your edits and have always tried to incorporate your wording and ideas into what I edited as much as possible. You, on the other hand, have shown bad form all throughout, going so far as deleting sections ("Overview" under Tech Data) because you didnt like how it was written and reverting edits. ::Also note that last edit did more than just move around paragraphs; I have also edited contents wise - which you wouldnt know of course, given that you just blindly hit the revert button. – Distantlycharmed 21:51, June 27, 2010 (UTC) You know I've tried to be cool and work with you but you are so hell bent on screwing up everything I've done in that article and are completely unwilling to compromise on this one thing. I have not fought you on any of your additions/re-writes since I re-wrote the Voyager article but you're not willing to give me this one thing? Maybe YOU should learn etiquette. So if you're interested in fighting me on this matter I will give you one - I'll continue to revert that section into the format it was in before (without the "Journey of Voyager" section) no matter how many times you try to re-add it. So maybe you should consider working with me. Also, I really don't give a crap how "annoyed" you are with my pointing out your inability to read - because if you could/chose to read anything with what I was trying to tell you, you would understand why I organized the article the way I did. Pay attention and quit being a jerk. --Nero210 22:19, June 27, 2010 (UTC) All right Frankly, folks, I'm not impressed with the way either one of you are conducting yourselves, and this has gone on long enough. I have again protected the Voyager page as a cool-down to halt the edit warring. If there is disagreement about how the page should be structured, you should talk about it and hash out an agreement before either one of you makes any changes. If after the protection is expired you both continue to act in the same manner, blocks may become neccesary. Let's talk about this and set aside any feelings before making changes that the other will just roll back.--31dot 22:16, June 27, 2010 (UTC) :I tried to talk to him but he hasn't shown any respect for the hard work I put in on this article, doesn't read one word about why I organized the article the way I did, and is unwilling to compromise. He seems hell bent on fighting everything I do on the Voyager article so naturally I'm getting a little frustrated. I understand I don't own "exclusive rights" to the Voyager article but neither does Distantlycharmed so if he isn't willing to compromise or even read why I'm doing things the way I am then I see no reason to work with him. --Nero210 22:26, June 27, 2010 (UTC) I have been and am more than willing to work this out with you. Like i said, I have cooperated with you on many of the topics and regarding the header of "Journey of Voyager" ''' I have also explained my rationale: The "History" begins telling about Voyager's first mission and assignment, its launch, how it was catapulted into the delta quadrant and the initial struggles they had with the Kazon and crew member defecting to their side and betraying them etc. After that, I think that creating a header or category that summarizes their Journeys past that initial point, to be very useful. I actually liked how you added the sub-header "Shortening the Journey" as that actually gave the title "Journey of Voyager" even stronger meaning and definition and just made sense - since they didnt embark on a journey unlike any other. Their encounter with the Borg, The pathfinder Project, Time Travel, The Equinox, Official Mission etc, - all fall under the Journey that Voyager has embarked on. I do not see anything wrong with that or that anything in this version either diminishes either your work or the organization of the article. If anything, I find it gives the article a nice structure and overview for readers who get on the page and want to learn more about the USS Voyager. So, there is that. On another note: Actually Nero, it is you who is hell bent in changing everything I do - as evidenced by going in EVERYTIME I edit and "fixing" something (which you can do of course, but reverting and deleting entire sections...). You are also the one threatening edit wars and that you will come back and revert my edits etc, if I dont agree with your changes (yet i am being equally threatened with a block). I also have pointed out to you many times - and i am baffled you still dont get it and that no one here on MA has pointed out to you yet - (again, I am being equally threatened with a block) that you DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE. You act like it is your property and you are just being nice enough to let me edit it (see what you wrote above about tolerating my edits). Anyway let me make this very clear: I am not editing this article to piss you off, I dont even know you, I am merely editing because it needs improvement. That's all. I would like people (and i do propose that) to go back to the point before the first block (like 50 sthg edits before your current one) and point out to me how my organization was so terribly bad that you apparently couldnt sleep at night and HAD TO CHANGE IT ALL OVER (complete revert) and then smugly leave me a mere note on my talk page to let me know that hey btw "I am going to keep changing it back". No discussion. So then we actually did go into discussion, yet you insist that I dont want to cooperate with you and as if I had in fact made any personal claims over this article - which is rather ironic because I am not the one mentioning in my profile page that '''I have rewritten the entire USS VOYAGER article. I, have actually been honoring and taking into consideration some of your edits and suggestions, such as no longer insisting that tech data come before history etc. Given that and your threats about reverting edits no matter what, I find it insincere of you to be accusing me of just blindly wanting to fight your edits, not cooperate and claim this article my own. – Distantlycharmed 01:34, June 28, 2010 (UTC)